The Susanna Wolff interview

Susanna Wolff of CollegeHumor.com gave FPM a little interview, where we talked about her favourite film: Everyone Says I Love You, among other things.



Tom: Alright, so i saw it around 3 weeks ago. Twice. It sort of set me off on a Woody Allen binge because I think the man's a total genius
Susanna: as you should
Tom: first off, why did you choose this film?
Susanna: It's a movie that I absolutely love and that almost no one has ever seen. I've recommended it to a bunch of people and they all always like it. Also, Woody Allen singing? I mean, come on
Tom: I can relate to that first point, I frequently campaign for my favourite smaller films to be seen and I'm never wrong. I was surprised by how good the cast was. I mean, considering the age some of them were, probably not big stars by then, it's a testament to Allen's eye I guess.
Susanna: Definitely. Natalie Portman at age 13-ish shows a lot of foresight on Woody's part
Tom: Even if she's a bit... "meh" for me.
Susanna: Haha, are you more of a Drew Barrymore man?
Tom: Not in THAT way. Gosh
Susanna: Haha. i'm just teasing you, I actually thought that Drew Barrymore was the most meh actor in the cast. Natalie Portman was cool by me, Julia Roberts was a little weird, but that may just have been her singing.
Tom: I think the whole semi-spoof vibe it had going on certainly helped to cover the slightly suspect acting of one or two of the cast. Also, i was a little surprised, not in a bad way, to see a bit of political commentary slipped in there with the Republican son
Susanna: The funny thing about Woody Allen's style of political commentary in his films, is that it's always just a given that the protagonists are liberals. And it's a safe assumption because most of his protagonists are NY Jews. I like that there is no controversy to the politics though. It's just there for background jokes.
Tom: I'm ashamed to say I never really thought of it like that
Susanna: Well, you don't have the viewing advantage of being a New Yorker. (Tom: NOT YET!) The movie is very very New Yorky in fact. Every location has specific connotations.
Tom: Oh man, they need to re-release it with a "Susanna info bar" down the bottom
Also, I've been curious about this: hypotheically, how would you feel if some guy employed Allen's character's actions to get close to you? Assuming you have a therapist, but let's face it, you're in NY
Susanna: Haha. I would find it crazy. (Even more crazy than I hypothetically am.) That sort of thing is just all kinds of Shakespearean messed up. It's the kind of plan that always backfires.
Tom: Yeah, i was SO waiting for it all to go tits-up in the film then when it all came out it wasn't really too bad. Well, you know what I mean, she didn't go crazy.
Susanna: Yeah, it was a very subtle unravelling. I really like that. It would have been so cheesy to have the secret come out and have there be some explosive fight. It's much nice to know that even if everything goes according to plan, the plan still won't work. That's a very Woody Allen conclusion.
Tom: I agree. It felt a lot more... real.
Susanna: Yeah. You've seen Annie Hall, right?
Tom: of course
Susanna: Then you know that the unhappy ending can really be delightful. What's more is that an unhappy ending isn't necessarily unhappy. It's just not what you expected in the beginning.
Tom: it's a common theme running through his films that I like. The plan or assumptions made ion the set up often turn out a whole lot differently, sometimes with little or no consequence
but it's how these people get to those places. I once had to describe VCB for a friend as she was a little sceptical and I went with "Nothing happens, it's just a whole bunch of really well-written conversations stringed together"
Susanna: Haha. That's my favorite kind of movie. It's all about the characters. Plot is just an excuse to get them to talk. Have you seen Play It Again, Sam?
Tom: I'm afraid not
Susanna: Oh man. That's another oft forgotten Woody Allen movie. You have to see it. Sorry, that's slightly off topic, but I didn't want to forget.
(It was on my rental list 15 minutes after the conversation ended)
Susanna: It's fantastic. What's really amazing about it and, actually, of all Woody Allen movies is that his character, that neurotic Jew shtick he does, was mostly made popular by him.
Sometimes you'll watch his old stuff and think, "This is just the same old gag I've seen a million people do." But he did it first. The New York Jew in therapy is him.
Tom: That's what it's like watching Emo Phillips do stand up, which I reccomend
Susanna: I am writing that name down.
Tom: alright, i was playing a game the other day, I had to think of who i would cast as my friends in a film on my life. Obviously, as you work with some people a lot of my readers are familiar with, who would you cast to play some of them?
Susanna: Wow, hard question. Let's think... I don't even know.
Tom: alright, it was a bit of a curveball question anyway
Susanna: I would probably make it some weirdo one man show. All one guy. Lots of costumes.
Bob Balaban does CollegeHumor.
Tom: I was about to say, if you had said Eddie Murphy the interview would have been over
Susanna: haha: Tyler Perry's Eddie Murphy does CollegeHumor: A Movie
Tom: Tow about this: if, God forbid, a remake of ESILY was in the works, and no matter how you felt about it, YOU had to cast it, who would you pick? re-casting the originals isn't an option.
This is a horrific alernate universe
Susanna: Jeez these question got hard. Let me think here. I know whatever I answer now I'm going to think about all day and want to change.
Tom: That's fair enough. It's clear you love the film and Woody in general, any other filmmakers you're very attached to?
Susanna: As girly as it sounds, I love Nora Ephron. When Harry Met Sally is one of the best movies. She is so great with dialogue.
Tom: You're certainly more of a character-centric dialogue person than anything else, do you still enjoy the more ridiculous and lavish Sci-Fi stuff out there?
Susanna: Definitely. If Die Hard is on TV, I'm watching it. Star Wars marathon? Yes please.
The only movies I can't stand are scary movies. Because I'm a wuss.
Tom: I can totally relate. I'll only watch a horror if it does amazingly well critically, like 28 days/weeks or The Mist or something. (Let The Right One In, too) I still haven't seen The Orphanage, which I must because Del Toro is my hero
Susanna: I had to leave the theater during 28 Days Later. It scared the crap out of me. I snuck into another theater and ended up seeing Alex and Emma, the most forgettable film ever.I only made it like 2 minutes in. I don't even know how it ends or what the explanation was. Honestly, even Shaun of the Dead scares me a bit.
Tom: It scared me a little the first time I saw it, but I was pretty young. Then I realised it's probably the best British comedy ever
Susanna: So hilarious, but that part when they're trapped in the bar is still a little frightening.
Tom: I can see what you mean. Are you one of those people that despite the plot or the jokes still finds yourself in the moment and imagining how you'd react to the situation within the film?
I did that with Saw the first time it came out. Screwed me up bad.
Susanna: Haha. I obsess over how I would react in a similar circumstance. The answer: I would absolutely die. No questions.

Susanna's superior wit and intellect can be further sampled in her articles, which can be found on her CH profile here: http://www.collegehumor.com/user:945989
share on: facebook

Review: Inglorious Basterds

Lord, where to even begin here? I’ve been actively dreading this review since I saw Inglorious Basterds a little while ago. Tarantino films are complicated enough to watch. The concept of giving an academic opinion on such a tricky film as this made me quake in my boots moments after leaving the cinema.

A second viewing recently quelled some of my fears. First-off, this is definitely a film you need to see more than once. I mean, sure, I loved it the first time round. Like, really loved it. But the second viewing, after I was free to research and dig without having to hide from spoilers, it just intensified and amplified the whole experience for me. I noticed the subtle nuances in the acting regarding the characters and where they were at that specific moment. Inglorious Basterds need to be seen, digested and seen again for full understanding and context. It was just made that way.

The premise of Inglorious Basterds, if you’ve not seen the trailer, appears to be this: 10 or so Jewish-American soldiers are dropped into a Nazi-occupied France during the closing stages of World War II. There, they pretty much wreak havoc on every Nazi soldier they find in a variety of gruesome and merciless ways (and the ones they do show mercy to are horrendously compensated for this). They decide disposing of the enemies in these outlandish and cruel ways isn’t quite awesome enough, so they decide to blow up a cinema on Nazi-night, thus ending the war.

Sounds pretty straightforward and cool, right? Ever seen a Tarantino film before? The trailer accounts for 2 of the 5 chapters of Inglorious Basterds. About halfway through this 152 minute-long epic, we realise that it’s not the Basterds who are really the main characters at all. The focus of the film shifts repeatedly between them and Shoshanna, who’s story is far too wonderful to give away.

Some would argue the pace is slow, where as I instead feel that the film lingers upon it’s own dialogue and characters, not wanting to spoil its own world by moving too quickly by them. The first chapter is a 20-minute conversation between two people sitting at a table. That’s it. The film maintains that perfect balance of making us relish the extended dialogue sequences, whilst cheering when these parts are interrupted by some good-old-fashioned Quentin-patented mayhem.

It certainly is a film that defies genre. While the action is important, it is not prominent. The drama is diluted by a lot of well-timed and well-placed black comedy and the magnitude of the war itself is only really touched upon in the final act. The best thing about all that is that each of these contradictions blend in with, and even complement each other to the point where what we’re viewing looks less like a jumbled mismatch of over-ambitious ideas and more a multi-layered, perfectly planned miracle.

Acting-wise, it’s no surprise Christoph Waltz was named Best Actor at Cannes. It’s a part that quite literally has to be seen to be believed. Keep an eye out. Elsewhere, Pitt impresses with a predominantly comedic turn as Aldo Raine, leader of the Basterds. Pitt’s at his best in the second chapter as he interrogates a Nazi Officer on the whereabouts of another squad in the area. On his refusal, he send out Eli Roth’s Donny Donowitz, a huge, angry Jew with a baseball bat. Awesome.

It’s actually Roth who impressed me more than most in Inglorious Basterds. The scene where he delivers some almighty punishment using his weapon of choice is preceded by Donowitz inspecting the officer’s badge and asking “you get that for killing Jews?”. It’s a perfect question, injected with so much controlled anger and sadness that it makes for one of the most powerful moments in the film. Despite Chapter 2’s more fun-loving tone, it’s certainly one of the more affecting moments in the entire thing.

Tarantino here has not only exceeded expectations, but exceeded them to such a degree one wonders if Inglorious Basterds could ever truly be topped as his best film. The film’s final line echoes this. And, to be honest, if this is the best we ever see of him, it’s a more than fitting case for his genius overall.

*****
share on: facebook

Review: Let The Right One In

Alright guys. Before we start, elephant in the room. You may or may not know Let The Right One In is a romance/vampire film, and you WILL know that, last year, a very popular and very high-profile romance/vampire film was released. It was almost impossible for me, as I watched Let The Right One In to not compare it to Twilight in my critical consideration. The concepts are undeniably similar, and I believe it's this coupled with the fact Let The Right One In is Swedish that caused the film to go largely unnoticed in a mainstream audience.

Let The Right One In opens in a small Swedish town. It is 1982 and Oskar finds himself bullied daily. He spends his nights planning and practicing violent revenge against his attackers. One night, while out stabbing trees, he meets Eli. Who's a vampire, just so you know.

What follows is a bleak, heartbreaking, solid, beautiful and real story of the two. It's gripping and intensely frightening, even without the horror subplot. Most of the credit here has to go to the two young actors who play Oskar and Eli (Kåre Hedebrant and Lina Leandersson) who give performances that actors 6 times their age would be commended for.

The film itself is written to perfection. Subtle indications of a character's fate/nature are alluded to and then never mentioned again, leaving it to you to piece together some of the facts. The dialogue is affecting and low-key, in keeping with the colour palette and soundtrack. This is not a horror that relies on CGI or jump-out-of-your-seat moments which, given some of the scenes, it very well could have been. When CGI is finally used in an obvious sense, it doesn't quite work and transports you out of the film for a short while, before quickly rediscovering its pace.

By far the best thing about Let The Right One In is the seamless integration of a real horror story with a real love story. While it isn't a blend by any means, both are represented side-by-side and complement each other until the very end. One minute you find yourself reeling at one of the very graphic horror scenes (one guy gets half his face burned off at one point. It's mental. Worse than Harvey Dent in The Dark Knight) and the next moment Eli and Oskar are standing on either side of a window, following each others handprints while I sit, 8 inches from the screen in hysterical tears shouting "LOVE EXISTS AND IT'S BEAUTIFUL".

Inevitably, things start to go tits-up for everyone and, as the film concludes we are treated to one of the best scenes in film of the last, well... ever. It's shocking, disturbing and just a little pleasing. The film ends on a high, but deliberately leaves a bloody trail behind it. Come the finale, morality grips and we find ourselves wondering if the bloodshed was worth it for the freedom of our protagonists.

Watch it, I beg you. Forget the subtitles and just get lost in the story. It's so worth it.

*****
share on: facebook

The 5 Best John Hughes films.

I miss him already. Despite the fact he pretty much became a recluse in '94, it was a comfort to know he was still out there. It's still very affecting for me, I've been singing his praises ever since I got into the whole film game. But everything must end.

Chances are, if you ever saw a comedy film in or from the 80's, Hughes was involved somewhere along the line. The impact he had back then, the ripples of which we are still experiencing today, is astronomical. So here it is, my way of a sendoff. Hughes' finest five. In my opinion, of course.

5. Home Alone
The film that inspired thousands of at-home accidents. Hughes is here, and always has been proof that a high-concept idea doesn't necessarily doom it to conforming to broad and jarring humour.

4. The Breakfast Club
One of Hughes' famous and most-loved. Stunningly heartfelt and funny without sacrificing too much social realism and relevance. Like most of his films, this is an unparalleled feelgood film.

3. Uncle Buck
Hughes' long-time friend and cinematic legend John Candy steals not only the show here but pretty much everything to go along with it. Stunningly warm with a neat edge and some subtle commentary on the changes youth culture has seen since Hughes grew up. A joy.

2. Ferris Bueller's Day Off
Ridiculous, unbelievable and over-the-top. And brilliant. Another defining teen film from Hughes. Matthew Broderick enjoys himself in and out of character, here. Bringing a charm and flare to this already so-enjoyable-it-should-be-banned piece.

1. Planes, Trains and Automobiles
What to say? A masterpiece. The film that showed the world Steve Martin and John Candy CAN act. More tonal and emotional shifts than any other Hughes films helps this become an all-inclusive classic. The ultimate buddy movie sees Martin's uptight and neurotic businessman Neal Page pair up with Candy's warm but irritating Del Griffiths in a bid to get home for thanksgiving. Needless to say, bad luck ensues.

With a shocking and heartbreaking twist at the end, Planes, Trains and Automobiles establishes itself as Hughes' best and most charming film ever.


One last time, goodbye, John. We won't forget about you.
share on: facebook

John Hughes.

Reblogged from my website:

I know I’ve been posting a lot in the 2 days I’ve been here, but the news has just reached me that today, John Hughes, director of one of my favourite films of all time (Planes, Trains and Automobiles) passed away at the age of 59.

Hughes was an incredible filmmaker and his work today remains regarded as some of the funniest, most heartfelt and most influential stuff to have ever been seen in cinema. An extraordinary talent, he will be sorely missed.

share on: facebook

Review: Moon

As most of you die-hard fans will know, I wasn't a huge fan of JJ Abram's latest try at directing in Star Trek. It was good and everything, but the pretentious film-lover in me has been very vocal this summer, prompting me to dust off some of the films that may be considered very limited in their nourishment of the intellect. Star Trek was 80% bang and 20% other stuff. I guess sci-fi just lends itself to that kind of thing. I mean, space adventures are pretty unbelievable to begin with so it's pretty easy to lure an audience with any kind of plot you can care to think up. Star Trek, Transformers, these are the films to which Moon provided a timely antidote. A brainteasing, minimalist and character-driven space story with more depth and intrigue than any overlong robot/alien "epic".

Moon opens, unsurprisingly, on the Moon. In the not-too-distant future Sam Bell (Sam Rockwell) sits alone on the far side of Earth's iconic satellite in a station, collecting energy and sending it to earth via little rocket things. He's been there for nearly 3 years and in 2 weeks, he goes home to his wife and baby daughter. All seems to be going well with Sam, although even at the beginning there's an underlying feeling of menace and foreboding as we witness him talking to himself and advising his bosses through a recorded message that 3 years is far too long for any man to remain in solitude. He's not COMPLETELY alone, though. He is assisted in everyday routines by Gerty (Kevin Spacey). Gerty is an intelligent but low-tech (by normal sci-fi standards) robot that moves about the station and talks to Sam, keeping him company. It's a relationship that builds throughout the film rather than deteriorate, a route so many man-and-machine stories go down eventually. Anyway, yes, everything seems to be going relatively well with Sam until certain events begin to occur. Nothing major, just a small indication that maybe he has been up on the Moon for too long. The event occurs again while he's performing a routine check in a buggy, causing him to crash, which is when things really get interesting.

Sam awakes in the base's infirmary. This here is a mystery in itself. In an uninhabited environment apart from himself, how did he get back to the base? Gerty is on hand to comfort Sam after his crash (remember his words in this part) and the routine begins again. That is, until Sam begins to get ever-so-slightly suspicious and decides to go back to the crash site. There, the film takes the most important twist in its modest 100-minute running time as Sam discovers Sam, still unconscious in the crashed Buggy.

To continue with any kind of synopsis would be cruel and detrimental to the impact the film has. What ensues is a thought-provoking, emotion-evoking and above all EXCITING drama about the human condition and morality. The best thing about Moon is arguably Rockwell himself, who channels both the main characters as very different personalities, despite the fact they are the same person. The interaction between the two of them is not only a testament to Rockwell's acting ability which really does excel here, but also the special effects that allow them to interact so seamlessly. All the more impressive when you consider Moon's small budget.

As the plot thickens and a small race-against-the-clock element is introduced, one would expect a third act lull in quality and intrigue as most films like this tend to fall for, replacing the heart and soul that originally transfixed us with a lot of running and shooting. Magically, Moon keeps its own pace and the finale unfolds on its own terms, offering not only an extremely satisfying conclusion but an overwhelming sense of reward on the audience's behalf.

In a Summer bloated with money and gloss, it's a relief to find such an elegant and beautiful film in Moon to enjoy. With an consistent, engaging story and some mighty fine acting, I might be inclined to say it's the best film of 2009 so far. Maybe.

*****
share on: facebook

The review of Summer

Summer is an interesting time of year. For some people. For others, like me it’s an excuse to avoid the sun at almost any cost. So here, as a welcome back present, it’s my review of some of the films I’ve watched (and re-watched) in my many venues for holiday fun these past few weeks.

My travels first took me to Greece, where I watched Superbad about 4 times alternating between having the commentary on and off.
Rating: ****
I also watched the DVD extras which gave me something new to laugh about. That 2-disc edition is literally essential for a Superbad fan.
Rating: *****

I also bit the bullet and finally saw Children Of Men, which I’ve been told by everyone ever is a fantastic film. Note to people: yeah, you’re right.
Rating: ****

Ron Howard’s classic Parenthood is a very under-appreciated film despite the amazing cast. Steve Martin’s best role? Go on, then.
Rating: *****

In Bruges got its fair share of plays in all locations. It remains at ***** and retains its #1 spot on my all-time favourites list.

Next up was Devon where the screwball comedy fan in me got to express himself in all his glory. My week in DVD here consisted of:

Airplane!, perhaps the first and best modern screwball. I have nothing more to say on this fantastic film except GO SEE IT
Rating: ****

Liar Liar, another fine choice for the comedy fan. If you haven’t seen it, find out the nearest institution to admit yourself to.
Rating: *****

Harvey. My dad’s favourite film. Get past the age of the film (59 years old) and enjoy one of the finest pieces of American cinema ever. Better than It’s a Wonderful Life.
Rating: *****

As well as all this, I also ended up watching Come Dine With Me on a near-daily basis. To this day, I still am.

The final leg of my travels took me close to home, but still away from home nonetheless. Here, I experienced (and made others experience) yet more of Woody Allen’s genius in two of his greatest achievements to date: Vicky Cristina Barcelona (*****) and Everyone Says I Love You (**** - stay tuned for a bigger piece on this one)

I also dipped my toes into the tranquil pastures of some fucking gory horror stuff in the form of 28 Days Later (*****) and Repo! The Genetic Opera (***)

I managed to see a film that’s been haunting me for years yet always remained elusive in The 40 Year-Old Virgin, it really is funny.
Rating: ****
Rewatching Thank You For Smoking and Watchmen in the past few days gave me a freshened yet similar view on them both, too: They’re fucking amazing
Rating for both: ****

In cinema, I managed to see Harry Potter 6 which, as any self-respecting human being with half a brain will tell you, is OK.
Rating: ***

That’s all for now, Next stop, Moon.

Not literally.
share on: facebook

Review: Bruno

Ever since Borat in 2006, we were left wondering: what’s next? Sacha Baron-Cohen has a good thing going, if you can understand and appreciate his style of humour/filmmaking then he never fails to deliver. The downside to his approach is we’re only ever going to see each of his characters for a short while before he has to get rid of him, lest the fame of his previous endeavors ruin his attempts to stay below-the-radar enough to expose most people as the monsters they are, which is essentially what he enjoys doing most.

Bruno, of course, was next. Now, Baron-Cohen’s characters have had a film each. Ali G In Da House was a scripted comedy while Borat was an overseas mockumentary, a veritable barrage of clips of him embarrassing the American people in a series of stunts. Bruno very much copies the latter, almost too much in some cases. In both films, about two-thirds of the way in we see the title character broke, abandoned my his travelling partner and struggling to make an impact. Bruno does indeed repeat many beats of Borat, but that’s not to say it’s necessarily a bad thing. Where Borat was loud and clueless there is a deeper sensitivity to Bruno, one that almost shines through as genuine before we hastily remind ourselves this guy is about to cause a riot/security threat/shutdown of the production of a Prime Time TV Drama.

ALthough Bruno may be EVER so slightly flatter than Borat, it makes up for its decreased laugh-out-loud moments with some truly shocking and horrific scenes, an instance of which involves Bruno screening a pilot of his show for a focus group, the climax of which is bruno dancing COMPLETELY naked before the camera zooms in and his urethra, yes, HIS URETHRA opens up like a mouth and says “Bruno”. It’s clear that Baron-Cohen is still as cruelly calculated in his torture of the innocent and unaware as ever and it still works. The formula manages to stave off tedium with his unearthly knack of getting people to reveal much darker sides to themselves than they would ever admit to. These include getting a mother to agree to make her 6-year-old daughter lose ten pounds in a week for a photoshoot, getting a TV celebrity to say Jamie-Lynn Spears should abort her “retarded” baby and getting Paula Abdul to speak about Human rights as she sits on the back of a Mexican worker due to a lack of furniture.

Believe me, I’ve spoiled nothing. There’s more shocks crammed into this films measly 89-minute running time than any film I’d care to mention and surprises will be plentiful, no matter how many times you’ve seen the trailer. The content of this film warrants an immediate second viewing because there’s just so much being thrown at you to fully absorb before you’re plunged into the cold, unfamiliar depths of another Baron-Cohen stunt.

I urge anyone who may find offense in sexism, racism, homophobia or xenophobia to definitely see this film. I enjoy nothing more than your bitter revenge in some strongly-worded rant on a public forum, and Sacha Baron-Cohen loves it, too. This film is designed to keep people talking and that’s exactly what people do. So why fight it? Accept it’s 3-0 to this wind-up God and be on your way.

To summarise this beautifully crafted, flowing piece of literature that only 1.30am can produce, Bruno is very, very good. Borat one-ups it on laughs alone but Bruno trounces in all other areas. Less annoying catchphrases, too. But who can resist: “Vassup?!”

****
share on: facebook

Happy Holidays!

I'm leaving tomorrow for a fun 3 weeks of fun.

29th June - 3rd July: I will be at Center Parcs
4th - 11th: I'll be in Greece
12th - 18th: I'm rolling on down to Devon.

This means I'll be literally without any way of writing reviews for you all for even one second as I'm going this way and that. The best way to find out what I'm up to and what I think of the films I watch (I'll be using a LOT of DVDs in Greece. I hate the sun) is through my personal twitter, http://twitter.com/tommphilip

Until then, everybody, goodbye and enjoy your summer.

Tom.
share on: facebook

Review: Transformers: Revenge Of The Fallen

Alright, let’s get a few things sorted before this all kicks off. Transformers was a damn good film. It gave us what we wanted: Robots turning into cars and fighting and by god, they gave us it by the barrelfull. My original niggles stemmed from the fight scenes being too long and confusing. It’s much harder to tell where one robot begins and one ends when they’re in a ruck. Also, the dialogue was cheesy and pretty stilted. Saying that, Transformers, unlike many Summer blockbusters, knew its place. The fact it was so self-aware of its own ridiculousness allowed cynics like me to relax and go along with it. The humour was just right in the first, from the fantastic Bernie Mac’s used car salesman character to Shia’s easy, accessible but nonetheless geeky protagonist. It was the Goldilocks of 2007, everything was just right.

Transformers: Revenge Of The Fallen was an almost guaranteed success from the word go. There was only one way to make people like it more than the original and that was more robots, right? Right! For the months leading up to it I looked around online for the lowdown on the new robots we were going to be seeing. New additions to the Autobots lineup looked amazing as ever with Arcee (A pink motorbike), Jolt (A blue electric car, has electro-whips as weapons) and Sideswipe (Some badass supercar with 2 swords for arms) joining the team. On the Decepticon side, fan favourites Soundwave (A sattelite) and Ravage (A mechanical jaguary.. type.. thing) were set to join as well as the “Constructicons” (7 construction vehicles that combine to form Devastator). If that wasn’t enough, Megatron and Starscream were back as well as a NEW big bad baddie, The Fallen.

SO, yeah, sounds pretty terrific. There was one problem: none of the exciting new characters got ANY kind of screentime or lines in the ENTIRE 147 (far too long) minute film. Arcee and her 2 other friends (also motorbikes) got one, maybe 2 lines in the entire thing and featured so little it was infuriating. The motorbike Autobots were genuinely fascinating machines and we were offered no action with them whatsoever. The same can be said for Jolt, who speaks not once in the entire feature and is only seen briefly fighting in the background of the final showdown. Sideswipe got a little more attention and for that I’m thankful. I mean, what’s the point of introducing these truly amazing new characters if we never see them do anything? “Well, fear not” the producers told us, “How about... these guys?!” and with that, The Twins were born. The Twins, or Skids and Mudflap are possibly the most intensely and horrifically irritating characters to have ever been brought into the Transformers universe. It is baffling to me that, not only were they ever introduced into the film at all, but that the screentime they got was probably more than Megatron, Bumblebee or even Optimus Prime.

The Decepticon side of things wasn’t all that great either. In fact, they had the exact same trouble as the Autobots: Too many cool robots being boring, too many annoying robots being all too prominent. The aforementioned fan-favourite Soundwave (who won a poll on which Transformer they’d most like to see in the sequel) took up the duties as a secretary. Never once transforming into his robot form, never once descending to earth, Soundwave pretty much floated about and, yeah, sent memos to the Decepticons. Thrilling. And The Fallen? The mysterious, huge, ancient bad guy who so badly wants revenge for something or other (still not quite sure what it was...)? Yeah? He’s in it for about... 10 minutes. He bums around Cybertron most of the film, seemingly active and then just... flies down to earth on a whim. He was fine and dandy THE WHOLE TIME which completely negates the impact of the prophecy a Decepticon early in the film imparted as its dying words: “The Fallen shall rise again”. Okay then, baddie, so what you were saying really was: “The Fallen never really fell, but sooner or later he’s going to be bothered to come down to earth and kick some ass”. The new “little guy” Decepticon, Wheelie, is not worth a mention whatsoever. He’s that awful.

Most of this review has been about the robots themselves. Then again, that’s what the films is mostly about. Plot and characters come second to the cool robots and that’s the philosophy they stuck to and made work in the first one. The problems with the second are obvious: Firstly, it’s trying far too hard to be an all-encompassing epic. This second film suddenly throws us into ancient Transformers mythology, with adventures going on all around the globe which really does stall the flow of the narrative, even one as flimsy as the Transformers one.

Secondly, to balance out all this new dramatic stuff, it seems some completely inappropriate and plain bizarre humour has been shoehorned in. It really was quite baffling watching Devastator, the 120ft mean machine crawling up a pyramid. I mean, we’re meant to be experiencing fear for the human race at this point before a swift camera swoop reveals that Devastator is in fact a male with 2 wrecking ball testicles. Classy. As well as this, Megan gets her leg humped by a tiny Transformer and Shia’s dogs and parents get it on. (Yes, now Shia has TWO dogs, that’s JUST how sequelly this sequel is)

To be honest, it’s just real messy. Moments which should have been game-changing and awe-inspiring like Optimus combining with Jetfire come off just OK but really anti-climactic, while almost all the easy charm of the two leads has fizzled out into one tiny ongoing device where neither wants to say “I love you”. It’s a good thing the fight scenes still rock (although god help me if I have to describe one) and there’s enough classic 2007 stuff to be brought back to the table.

**
share on: facebook

Now that exams are over

Time to DO something with my life.
share on: facebook

Musings - Episode 2

Musings: Episode 2

Sorry for the delay. I’d give you a proper reason but if I’m completely honest I just forgot.

Anyway, it’s that time of the year when awesome trailers for the Winter/Autumn start getting released. This episode’s awesomeness comes in the form of trailers for Guy Ritchie’s modern adaptation of Sherlock Holmes. Call me bias but Anything with Robert Downey Jr. is going to be f***king amazing. What REALLY looks good is the fact the trailer makes the film look pretty classy, dark AND funny in perfect measures. Who’s directing this again?
Watch The Trailer Here

Trailer number 2 is for The Time Traveler's Wife. Or, as it’s alternately titled: “This film will definitely make everyone cry.” I think we’re starting to see the awards contenders surfacing...
And That One Here

In other news, Moon is out and it looks incredibly incredible. I’ve got a real soft spot for crazy mind-bending sci-fi stuff and early hype promises my intrigue will be satisfied to no end. Also, It’s got Kevin Spacey. Boo-Yah.

A Lot of good news about, let’s counter that with the news UP ISN’T COMING OUT UNTIL OCTOBER. I know i moaned about this last time but I’m still annoyed and baffled. Anyone want to donate money for tickets to the states? I mean, what part of this release strategy ISN’T going to make everyone want to pirate it?

This time next week Transformers: Revenge Of The Fallen is released. I’m 90% sure the characters and plot and other “stuff” is just written around all the cool robots and fighting. It’s why I love it more than words can say.

I bought The Wrestler on DVD. It’s everything I remember it being and more. It’s a shame most people will never A. Buy it and B. Even less likely - watch the “making of” which features some of the most fascinating stuff I’ve ever seen. That Darren Aronofsky is a real hard-to-please kind of guy. WHo would have thought Mickey Rourke could ever mumble in an unsatisfactory manner? He Practically invented the mumble!

My Films of the moment are:
The Wrestler
Terminator Salvation
The Hangover
The Truman Show
Uncle Buck

Think of the above list as a kind of “life key” If you’ve seen all 5 then you’re either me or my soulmate. 4-3 means you’re a pretty stand-up kinda person. 2 is acceptable but only if you’re hot. 1 or none of the above and your soul is in imminent danger of bursting out of your body.

And that concludes another episode. Tune in next time when I’ll be talking about other things related to the world of film that happen to pop into my head during the half-hour I write this in.
share on: facebook

Review: Terminator Salvation

As terribly cliché as it would be of me to make some sort of “I’ll be back” pun, it was hard for any of us to believe Schwarzenegger, both in character and out of character, that the Terminator franchise would in any way return after the shambles that was Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines. For a while it looked like that was the case. The story hadn’t nearly been told but the trilogy brought with it a sense of completion. Fastforward to 2007. Whisperings about Hollywood were predicting a return of the Terminator films. What brave, visionary director was going to take up the challenge, who was going to succeed in folling James Cameron’s shoes where Jonathan Mostow had failed?

McG is the man in question. No first name, barely a name at all. No vowels? Wow, this guy MUST be good if he’s pretentious enough to direct under such a name. What’s he made again? Oh.

McG has only directed 2 films before Terminator Salvation. Charlies Angels and Charlies Angels: Full Throttle. It looked like Terminator was going to be run into the ground with NO hope of resurrection this time. It was, in many people’s eyes, an immediate death sentence. Then, something amazing happened. The story was announced, pictures began leaking, the cast began expanding and before you knew it we were whipped into a frenzy promising us the darkest, most gripping Terminator film ever.

And was it? Well... not really. But it’s still pretty damn good. Terminator Salvation takes us into the future the first 3 films warned us about. The future everyone’s favourite T-800 was sent back from all those years ago to kill Sarah Connor. For the first time, we see what’s happened to the earth post-Judgement Day. It’s a mess. In Layman’s terms, robots have taken over the world, now a wastland. John Connor (Christian Bale) is leading a worldwide network of humans as the resistance against the machines. I’ve never been Bale’s biggest fan. He delivers what we’ve all come to expect. Charisma-free gruff dialogue and a lot of shouting, although nothing that can quite match the leaked behind-the-scenes f-bomb filled rant at the DP on-set. I mean, seriously, who WASN’T secretly hoping for, at some point in the film, the camera to nudge away, Bale drop character and lay into that poor guy in what’s probably the biggest, greatest blooper in recent cinema history.

Bale aside, the other actors fare better. Sam Worthington does an outstanding job as Marcus Wright. He’s energetic, cheeky and above all a great character. I would have liked a further, deeper look into his world as it really was quite arresting. The rest of the ensemble makes up a pretty solid background, although the film isn’t too interested in that. McG is eager and willing to give everybody what he thinks they want. Mindblowing action set pieces! Each bigger and more expensive than the last! Fair play to him, the strategy fairs well for the most part. The action is well-paced, tense and really quite engaging. I really found myself enjoying the film before the slowdown of the final few scenes. The climactic fight is good enough, resurrecting a VERY familiar Austrian-looking T-800 to dish out some pain to Connor before a convoluted, rushed final scene that is, to put it bluntly, a disappointment in every way.

Terminator Salvation is many, many things. On the whole, though, if you’re looking for a big, big action film with a nifty storyline and certainly more thrills than Star Trek, go with it and enjoy the best film of the summer so far.

****
share on: facebook

We have a Twitter!

Now I can take blogging into a whole new dimension, MICROBLOGGING! I have been following all those that mentioned 2008 favourites like In Bruges, The Wrestler and Vicky Cristina Barcelona. I also searched and followed a few who liked The Happening, people like that very thin on the ground, though. I mean, who would publicly broadcast the fact they LIKED that film? Shameful. Follow @FPMBlog and make sure to include it in all your #followfriday's.

For those that don't use twitter, I apologise for how geeky he above paragraph was.
share on: facebook

The MTV Movie Awards

It’s that time of year again! After all the speculation, all the wondering, the MTV Movie Awards are finally here . Yay! Now, ladies and gentlemen, please welcome your host- oh. Oh, hang on a second. We need to wait for the fangirls to stop screaming in the audience because a split-second image of Robert Pattinson on the giant screen has worked them into a frenzy.

That’s pretty much what the MTV Movie Awards were about last night. Not ten minutes went by without Twilight winning an award, or somebody mentioning Twilight, or one of the actors getting some screentime... As well as that, half the audience genuinely seemed to consist of some horrible Twilight Youth Rally that screamed and cheered for every single second they had at their disposal - as long as it was about Twilight, of course.

Anyway, The MTV Movie Awards are silly, we know that. It’s a chance for the Hollywood Elite to relax and enjoy 2 hours of harmless entertainment in the guise of an awards show without consequence. Andy Samberg hosted this year, and definitely lived up to the gigantic reputation he’s made for himself in such a short period of time. He wasn’t afraid to poke fun at the celebrities in the crowd, and also wasn’t afraid to showcase himself in some mini-sketches throughout the night. He was hands-down the best and most consistent thing about the show. So much, in fact, one of his links to the next award consisted of him grinning into the camera and saying “Twilight!” just to get a reaction from the crowd. In that moment, I hailed him a hero as he finally said what everyone had been thinking.

The awards themselves were pretty bleak with Twilight and High School Musical 3 grabbing all four of the acting awards between them. Someone please tell me how, even in an MTV world, Zac Efron can act better than Robert Downey Jr. and Christian “I’m gonna kick your FUCKIN’ ASS” Bale? It certainly seemed to boggle his mind, too as he delivered possibly the most awkward and irritating speeches in awards acceptance history. Though, fair play to him he may have been put off by the image of a half-naked Sacha Baron Cohen teabagging an angry Eminem, an event that transpired seconds before he was announced the winner.

Looking though the winners now, there is not on single thing there I can justify as credible. It seems the MTV Movie Awards have now fully descended into an inside joke amongst the crowd and the producers alike. It certainly seems like cheap entertainment given Twilight won 5 awards in the night. Other notable funny moments included Bride Wars receiving two nominations (Come ON, MTV!) and host Samberg introducing an “exclusive sneak peak at New Moon *fangirls SCREAM* before cutting to himself dressed as a vampire running round a high-school being chased by a cheap teen werewolf. The classy medley of The Lonely Island’s songs also worked well, with Forest Whitaker capping the performance off with an undeniably well-sung chorus of “Dick in a Box”

I get it, the MTV Movie Awards shouldn’t be taken seriously. And for the record, I liked Twilight, it’s a decent film but what annoyed me was the fact that even the lowest of awards ceremonies are about recognising a selection of good films released that year, not just two or three. See you next year when we’ll be dissecting just how New Moon beat Transformers 2 to the big prizes of the night.
share on: facebook

Angels and Demons

Guys, it's so boring to watch, let alone write about. Don't see it, let's leave it at that.

In the meantime, here's the awesome new trailer for Toy Story 3, out in just over a year.


share on: facebook

Review: The Mist

Alright, so I saw the Fog a while back. It was shit, wasn’t it? Pirates have no serious place in horror. 2 years ago, The Mist was released. Some people thought this was a sequel, and therefore steered clear. I mean, if you thought the FOG was shit, how about a film about MIST?

I gave it a go a year back and saw it again recently. The Mist is not your usual horror fare. Frank Darabont directs this adaptation of a Stephen King story, (Other works between the two include The Shawshank Redemption and Green Mile) In which a man (Thomas Jane) and his son (Nathan Gamble) travel to the store after a huge storm. While there, a man rushes in, warning people “there’s something in the mist” before the mist itself engulfs the store, trapping everyone inside. It’s unusual in its reliance on people, rather than monsters. In fact, it’s a while before any real supernatural threat shows up. And then after that, we wait even longer. Darabont is much more interested in the fear and selfishness that makes us human rather than a load of silly-looking CGI bug thingys flying about.

The cast is, well, backed up by a supporting crowd, although none stand out as well as Andre Braugher, playing David’s attorney next-door neighbour, who remains skeptical of the nature of the mist before venturing into it himself (his fate is left unclear, although I assume he wasn’t skeptical for very long after stepping out of the store). Marcia Gay Harden as Mrs. Carmody does well with such a horrible character, playing the undeniably insane Christian zealot, who views the horror within the mist as Judgment Day. Unfortunately, her bizarre theories initially pay off and she gathers followers, pulling the strings in what has to be one of the most distressing scenes of the year after she has discovered just what (or who) is responsible for the appearance of the creatures.

That’s not all, there’s further distress at the end, when we are treated to not only the most shocking and downbeat endings in recent cinema history, but also one of the best. I warned you.

If you’re going to buy or rent it, make sure you watch it in black-and-white, which is the way Darabont originally intended. The film does have a very nostalgic horror vibe and that’s reflected in the quality of the effects. B&W helps in both these ares, increasing the nostalgia and decreasing the likelihood you’ll get distracted by sub-hollywood CGI monsters.

The Mist is a rare breed. Smart, scary and above all quality. It blends the emotion and drama evoked from purely human relationships perfectly with the subplot of the monsters. Just brace yourself for the ending. It hits you hard.

****
share on: facebook

Review: Brick

You’ve probably heard of Brick. And Probably haven’t seen it. The first time I saw it was years back. And I only watched it then because Emilie De Ravin was in it (I’m not a pervert, just an overly motivated Lost fan). In 2006 I guess I must have been a little immature to process Brick because I thought it was weird as hell and, as a result, didn’t like it very much. Braving it again last night, I found out just how wrong I had been.

The film stars Joseph Gordon-Levitt as Brendan Frye. A quick search of the internet finds his performance in Brick has been compared more often than not to the actors of yesteryear. “Neo-noir” also seems to be a buzzword in reviews of Brick. So I won’t waste time by commenting on that, despite the fact it’s true. Anyway, Brendan is possibly one of the best characters in any film I’ve seen in a long time. It’s almost futile to sit here and write out what makes him such a powerful force onscreen, because I’d be sitting for hours trying to think what to say and then realise I couldn’t. It’s refreshing, Brendan is fearless and terrified at the same time, employing virtually every asset he has to find out just what happened to his now-deceased girlfriend (only not really), Emily (Emilie de Ravin).

The trailer for Brick gives a little too much away, so jump in cold and experience the results that way. It’s gripping and raw and there’s only the very briefest of points where the mind begins to wander. What sets Brick apart from most crime dramas is, initially of course, the setting. When was the last time you saw a good murder mystery set in a high school? That’s what I thought.

I usually get very uncomfortable with films like this. I find myself empathising and beginning to thank the lord I don’t exist in such a time and place. The whole world-of-drugs-gritty-underbelly thing really gets to me, although maybe I’m just a wimp. With Brick, however, I did want to be there. I wanted to be Brendan and experience the way he planned things out, the way things fell into place in his head and the way he tied up loose ends on instinct alone. The performances made it real and the result was something stunning.

Brick reminds you just how imperfect life is, and how awful people can be, regardless of age. It’s a powerful, thoughtful and, occasionally funny piece with much more of a plot than the first 30 minutes might suggest.

****
share on: facebook

Review: Coraline 3D

Those of you kind enough to have been reading when I was reviewing Monsters Vs. Aliens will know I was weary of 3D being as prominent as it seems to be becoming. I don't want to be marvelling at the visual in favour of a good story. Coraline was my first venture into 3D. I have seen it once in 2D as well.

Coraline's a weird story - though what else can you expect from the man who directed The Nightmare Before Christmas? No, it wasn't Tim Burton. You fool! Henrry Sellick is the man in question and the story begs for a director as willing to scare kids rather than just entertain them.

Coraline was originally written as a musical comedy. I'm glad that didn't work out as the creepy, dark nature of the film was something that really made it stand out from most of these moden disney-esque feelgood films. Coraline is an animated feature with quite a bit of substance and bite for a PG. Several of the people I went with on the second viewing remarked on how scared they were at certain points. The other family in the screen with us left before the end. Is this a good thing? I think had Coraline been released 20 years ago, no child would have batted an eyelid. Fairytales are scary! Ever read a proper fairytale for yourself? There's some fucked-up goings on in some of the less concise editions. Ever seen the forest scene in Snow White? It's mental! Coraline is nothing children can't handle and it's an insult to them to suggest otherwise.

Back to the 3D: It really does make a difference. Coraline is the first stop-motion to be filmed in 3D and the technique works perfectly with it. The fact is that Stop-Motion has a more homemade and classy feel to it and to present actual objects as 3D makes it all the more exciting and beautiful. One particular scene in which Coraline travels through her "other" garden is breathtaking. The landscapes shape themselves and everything feels so much more.. real - and, as a result, even creepier once things go tits-up. Without 3D, the film feels a little flatter and when the story slows midway through, there's less to keep your mind from wandering for that brief period.

Another annoyance was Coraline herself. Sure, she's brave but she's also a total bitch. Her initial scenes set her up as overly annoying and her adventures grate before there's any real peril. The best character in the film was by far her Other Father. He's the fun of the film with the only musical number in the film, and some of the best lines. Later on, his luck runs out and tragedy strikes. He was certainly the character I cared most for, despite certain revelations about his existence later on. The Cat also has some good dialogue, but other than that the one-dimensional characters throughout proved to be quite jarring to the film's overall effect.

My advice? See it, it's a wonderful tale if a little rough around the edges. However, it's everything a family fantasy should be. Colourful, occasionally scary and more often than not, fun. If you have no other options, go for 2D but be warned, you haven't seen it until you've donned the glasses.

Rating: ***(2D) ****(3D)
share on: facebook

NEW - Musings (Episode 1)

-I heroically staved off revision this week and once again accepted procrastination as my saviour. As a result, I managed to watch the whole of Season 4 of House within the last 4 days. A very brief check of my vital anatomy reveals me to be, indeed, male. However, the season finale “Wilson’s Heart” has won the honour of being the first EVER thing on TV to make me cry. It now joins The Wrestler, Planes, Trains and Automobiles and E.T. As the only fictional things to do so. Season 4 has the set-up of a new beginning. So if you’ve never seen House and can’t stomach 5 seasons of catching-up. I say start on 4, the best of the lot so far. It’s also the shortest of all the seasons thanks to the writer’s strike.

-Dear Harry Potter,
Just what the hell are you? What I expected to be the weakest of the Summer’s films (HP himself) has yielded an UNRELENTINGLY badass trailer. Kindly decide whether you want to be cheeky-kitsch or a fantasy epic. I will not stand for both so closely spliced in the future.

-I’ve heard from several sources today that Terminator: Salvation is an absolute dog. That’s my second surprise of the day (the first being the aforementioned awesomeness of the new Harry Potter trailer)

-I am in the midst of a cinema bonanza. I have/will have travelled to the church of film 3 times in 3 days by Friday. Expect reviews of Angels and Demons and, finally, Coraline.

-Muse's new album has a name! 3 years in the making, The Resistance will be out later this year.

-Who likes good films for a way cheap price and the company of me, Tom, for an evening? Everybody, that’s who. I will be attending a screening of Vicky Cristina Barcelona on the night of Monday, June 22 and EVERYBODY is invited.

If the above arguments weren’t enough to motivate you, Scarlett Johansson and Penélope Cruz make out in it. Seriously.

-My top films as of right now (subject to change on a daily basis) are:
Harvey (1950, James Stewart)
In Bruges (2008, Colin Farrell)
The Wrestler (2008, Mickey Rourke)
Ed Wood (1994, Johnny Depp)

-Those of you unlucky enough to live in the UK will be interested to know Pixar’s latest film, Up, due for release May 29th across the pond is expected to hit our shores not a week later, not 2 weeks later, not a MONTH later (which, for you non film geeks, is REALLY pushing it), but FOUR AND A HALF MONTHS LATER, October 16th. Whether this be due to 3D emerging as a prominent format remains to be understood.

Until next time.
share on: facebook

Review: The Old Man and the Seymour

I hate Sundays, I know you do, too. The excitement and potential of the weekend has fully dissipated and all that’s left stretching ahead of you is some average TV and your week’s schedule. Having fun revising? That’s what I thought.

Hey! Here’s an idea! Why not see a film? Don’t go to the cinema, the films are far too long and it costs way too much. You’ll never get enough work done in the day. What the modern “I hate Sundays” worker needs is a short, enjoyable, feel-good picture. Enter, The Old Man and the Seymour.

Now, I’ll tell you right off the bat. This film is 30 minutes long and is available freely on the internet. Not in a BAD way, they actually put it there. I know the concept of such a film can be off-putting so I’ll counter it by saying it’s good. Really quite good indeed. And funny, too.

The Old Man and the Seymour tells the story of Lewis Plunkett (Amir Blumenfeld). Lewis is 47, but due to a growth-hormone deficiency looks about 20. A short set-up in a supermarket tells you everything you need to know about the trouble he faces. Shortly thereafter, we’re introduced to Seymour (Streeter Seidell). Seymour’s dad has just died, and with mother already out of the picture, he moves in with Lewis to wait out his remaining months as an official minor.

The pair have such easy chemistry that the best scenes in the film by FAR are the ones between the two. My personal highlight was the dinner Seymour and Lewis have on the first night of Seymour’s new residency. What starts off as a pleasant meal quickly descends into such unbelievable chaos raises many-a-chuckle. The film continues strongly, before succumbing to lowbrow, easier stuff for the big finish which was a little disappointing. However, a strong supporting cast and enough real laughs help to ease the pain of the films larger failings.

Watch it, I say, if only to show your support for the two leads in what is their first out-and-out project. You have no excuse, follow the link below and settle down for 30 minutes. Both the film itself, and you guys, deserve it.

Rating: ***

You can watch The Old Man and the Seymour here - it even has an HD option.

share on: facebook

Review: Star Trek

The difference in style is due to the fact this review is being published in my village's magazine.


Before the beginning of 2009, if someone had mentioned Star Trek, the average person would have thought of dated CGI, unintentionally funny acting and, of course, those mythical, overly obsessed fans known as “Trekkies”. This is exactly what JJ Abrams would have thought of, too, before he signed on to direct Star Trek.

Those familiar with JJ Abrams will know he has a veritable Midas Touch when it comes to his creations. Nearly every project he has immersed himself in has been greeted warmly by critics and fans alike. Those unfamiliar with JJ won’t know he is the creator of such TV triumphs as Lost, Alias and Fringe as well as producing 2008’s monster movie/Blair Witch classic Cloverfield (****-On DVD). He also has tried his hand at directing before, taking on 2006’s Mission Impossible: III (****), arguably the most exciting of the trilogy.

Abrams has freely admitted to not being a big Star Trek fan, always citing himself as much more of a “Star Wars guy”. The fact, then, he was hired to direct the reboot to an all-but-dead franchise shows the new direction the enterprise was headed. Many people are afraid of Star Trek. The fact is that with its army of loyal fans, newcomers will feel alienated trying to get to grips with another chronological film. The original Star Trek series and its predecessor, The Next Generation spawned 10 films together before the brand was run into the ground by an all-too tired formula. This is why for a new Star Trek film to work, it had to gather new fans of today’s generation. Enter Abrams, a man with no romance for Star Trek, a man who would only make the film on the grounds it entertain, pleasing the hardcore fans was no longer a priority.

Star Trek is what’s known as a “reboot”. This is where a franchise with potential loses its way, and a new director, cast and story save the day by taking the franchise back to its origins. Recent examples of this can be seen from Chris Nolan’s take on Batman. a sequel to 1997’s disaster Batman And Robin was an all-too-horrific prospect and the series died. Come 2005 and along came Batman Begins. A darker, more adult take on the series.

Star Trek takes us back to the beginning, before the Enterprise ever took off. We are introduced to the iconic characters, played, on a whole, very well by the young cast, the biggest disappointment of any of these characters being Zoe Saldana as Uhura. That and SImon Pegg’s accent as Scottie. Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto play Kirk and Spock respectively, both lending their unique spins on the characters (to great effect) whilst simultaneously paying tribute to the iconic characteristics already perviously established. The story is functional enough and is sure to pull in new fans with its “less talk, more action” philosophy. Existing fans will be kept happy also, with Leonard Nimoy returning as Older Spock in a more prominent role than one might imagine.

As with any sci-fi, the impossibility at which the protagonists overcome the odds becomes little more than irritating, rather than inspirational. I’m not a huge fan of action for the sake of action and outside of the opening 40 minutes, that’s pretty much what to expect. Saying that, it’s a worthy beginning for a new take on the journey, one that can be enjoyed by people of all ages, and all degrees of Trek fandom.

Rating: ***
share on: facebook

Review: A Complete History Of My Sexual Failures

Yes, it is true what they say. Well, actually there is no saying for this situation, but if there was one I imagine it’d be something like “If you’re completely f***ing crazy, you’ll have completely f***ing crazy relationships.” No-one told this to Chris Waits, who, after 13 (to his initial count) failed relationships, decides to take a journey, and interview the women of his life he let down.

The interesting (or not) point about this film above all was that, despite his candid approach to filming, by this I mean turning up to people’s houses when he had been refused beforehand, interviewing people he’s never met on how to get an erection and later asking strangers on the streets of central London for sex. Despite these admittedly amusing moments, I found myself more interested in the setting. Much of the opening of the film plays out in Glasgow, my hometown. I noticed shops I go to, restaurants I like and places I walk. The film for me was more like Google Street View to begin with.

As the film progresses, it becomes more and more obvious Chris is actually, with the best will in the world, insane. Here, I lost empathy for a man I felt had been given a rough time, and was just a little... odd? Sorry, but this idea was wasted on him. With such a good idea for a documentary, it was the wrong person to back with it. However, a good idea’s a good idea and the pay-off is unexpected and a nice touch. Go with it, and you’ll enjoy it.

Rating: ***
share on: facebook

Review: X Men Origins: Wolverine

First up, let’s take a roll-call of of things that would have made this film crap:

20th Century Fox? Check
Annoyingly bad CGI? Check
Different character relationships from the original trilogy? Check
Hugh Jackman? Check
Deadpool WITHOUT the wisecracks? check

My god, the horror!


On to the real review. Despite the points made above, these suspect elements form only a mild crappy backdrop to the film. Set to tell the story of how James Logan became “Wolverine”, we travel rapidly from his childhood to teaming up with several other mutants in mere minutes. The pace doesn’t let up from then on. The philosophy of the writes seemed to be “Right, how many people can we kill and how many things can we blow up in 107 minutes?” Because of this, a weak, if fun, plot ambles along without really providing for the viewers who have reached puberty.

Crash, slice, roar, boom, crash, slice, roar, boom. Getting bored reading that? Imagine WATCHING it. That’s unfair, it’s actually quite fun. Wolverine doesn’t try to labour under the pretension it’s anything but a popcorn blockbuster for people with half a brain (Unlike X-Men III: The Last Stand which took itself WAY too seriously.) Ryan Reynolds is perfectly cast as pre-op Deadpool. Liev Schreiber also makes his mark as Victor Logan, later Sabretooth.

Just to clarify, Sabretooth was in X-Men, the first film. However, he was played by a different actor and was NEVER Wolverine’s brother. I hate it when Origin stories refuse to keep canon!

The Sabretooth issue seems small, especially when I say he was done VERY well in this film. Better than in the original film. But it’s just the start of the problems. Deadpool, for instance. Like I said, Ryan Reynolds was cast PERFECTLY as the younger Deadpool. His dark, witty charm working well with the overall tone of the film. What do they do with him in the climax? Sew his damn mouth up. However, a Deadpool: Origins film is in production now so this niggle gets downgraded. Along with assuring everyone everywhere that by 2015, there will be no superhero ANYWHERE that won’t have had a film spin-off.

I admire XMO:W (abbreviation: the next big thing. or, if you prefer, A:TNBT) as it doesn’t even TRY to steer clear of the cliches and pitfalls that would destroy a lesser film. With its lack of pretension and commitment to nothing but carnage, it provides a fun, easy watch to start the rolling in of the Summer Blockbuster season. Next stop: Star Trek.

Rating: ***
Sequels: Deadpool and Wolverine II in production, also Magneto: Origins.
share on: facebook

Review: Vicky Cristina Barcelona

Contrary to the belief caused by the naive, in-the-moment nature of humans today, love and romance are two very separate and exclusive ideas. VCB, Woody Allen’s first worthwhile film in as long as someone my age can remember, is a testament to this. Moving on from Allen’s fixation on London (the setting for his last 3 features), the focus shifts to the balmy and undeniably sexy climate of Barcelona, the very mention of which from a Spanish mouth is enough to make any female with a pulse jump in to bed. Okay, maybe I exaggerated a little.

VCB essentially centers around 2 characters, Vicky and Cristina, encapsulated by one entity, Barcelona, geddit? Vicky (Rebecca Hall) is the ever-classic Woody Allen character in the film. Forever skeptical of Juan Antonio (Javier Bardem)’s unabashed attempts to bed her and her friend, Cristina (Scarlett Johansson). The pair have travelled from America to Barcelona for the summer. As the opening narration indicates, the pair hold two very different attitudes towards love and romance. And this is where the difference between those two ideas comes in.

In a perfect world, romance precedes love. One leads to the other. VCB doesn’t tolerate the idea for one second. There’s romance EVERYWHERE in this film, but no love. At the same time, short, passionate romances can be stronger than love in any case. As the plot progresses, it’s clear how little chemistry those within the film would claim to be in love have with each other, as soon as Juan Antonio shares the screen with them. At the start of the film, Vicky is engaged and unashamedly attempts to humiliate Juan Antonio’s advances. However, things move on and, after a series of events far too delightful to divulge in writing, Vicky and Juan Antonio find themselves together for the evening. It’s here we discover maybe love isn’t as strong and as defined a notion as we perceive. All it takes is one smooth-talking Spanish artist to make the frostiest of women doubt their future in matrimony.

As much as I’d like to review the film further, it’s essential the unfolding, break-down and building of the relationships here are viewed as spontaneously as possible. I hate spoilers. Let it be known, however that the film’s wonder isn’t nearly reached until about two-thrids of the way in when Juan Antonio’s ex-wife, María Elena (Penélope Cruz) turns up, fresh from a suicide attempt.

The plot is unimportant next to this witty, charming and undeniably wise script. A testament to the fact even the proudest and most stubborn people in this world can learn to appreciate obscurity and individuality when they open their minds and appreciate. There’s also lessons to be learned from Juan Antonio himself. Anyone who saw No Country For Old Men will (hardly) recognise him as the almost-mute serial killer. Here, however his bohemian charm is firing on all cylinders as he takes plunges most people wouldn’t even dream of as he invites the two women to bed, having just met them:

Juan Antonio: I go to see a sculpture, that is very inspiring to me. A very beautiful sculpture. You will love it.

Vicky: Oh, right. you're asking us to fly to Oviedo and back.

Juan Antonio: Mmmm. No, we'll spend the weekend. I mean, I'll show you around the city, and we'll eat well. We'll drink good wine. We'll make love.

Vicky: Yeah, who exactly is going to make love?

Juan Antonio: Hopefully, the three of us.

Vicky: hmm, I don’t think so

Juan Antonio: Why not? Life is short, life is dull, life is full of pain. This is a chance for something special.

VCB essentially reminds us that being human isn’t nearly normal as we’ve been led to think. Taken out of our element, human nature warps into something at first unnerving before we realise perhaps, maybe things were weird to begin with. Woody Allen hasn’t just returned to form here with this beautiful, funny, engaging film, he’s rediscovered the magic that made him a genius to begin with.

Rating: *****
share on: facebook

Review: The Wrestler

I never got round to seeing the Wrestler in a cinema. Honestly, I feel like it’s the biggest mistake I ever made. Fuck Bambi, fuck Titanic and fuck P.S. I Love You, The Wrestler is the single most emotionally pitch-perfect film I have ever seen. And I’ll admit it, it made me cry.

The Wrestler sees a “return” from Mickey Rourke into the world of acting (Although as I recall, he did a pretty nifty job in Sin City in 2005, still, people like an inspirational story, even if it is a little exaggerated) and it;s like he never left. At the risk of sounding like 97% (according to RT) of the critics before me, he’s PERFECT in this role. Rourke single-handedly dominates this already small (and wonderful) cast which makes it all the more spectacular. It’s an absolute wonder to see a man on top of his game at the most unlikely of times in his career.

I have to say, also, I was so upset when Sean Penn won his “Best Actor” award at the Oscars. Milk was an overrated film to begin with, in my opinion and there was no way anyone did any better than Mickey last year. Sorry, Penn but you’re a thief.

The Wrestler’s plot sounds simple: an old Wrestler from the 80’s is doing the independent circuit, living in a trailer park and refusing to move past his glory days, clinging on to any nostalgia he can in an all-too fast-moving world. I don’t want to give too much away on the plot, I was advised by a friend, very wisely to not look ANYTHING up on it before watching. Apart from this review, obviously, but you can trust me. It works as well. Such a low-key concept on paper is transformed into something that is so much more on screen. It’s pound-for-pound the most beautiful and well-acted script in years.

With a $6 million budget, an all-but washed out star (who didn’t even get paid initially) and a single line summarising the premise, it;s surprising The Wrestler was given the chance it was. But it took that chance and the results are astonishing. Perfection.

Rating: *****

The Wrestler is out JUNE 1 on DVD and Blu-Ray. Find it at any retailer - PLEASE!
share on: facebook

Review: I Love You, Man

2009 has been a good year for Paul Rudd. He’s had big success with his first lead in Role Models ( **** -One of my top 10 comedies ever) and I Love You Man promises to continue the trend for such a talented actor. At first glance, this is a weak film. Both leads have really only had a starring film each, the aforementioned Role Models for Rudd and 2008’s Forgetting Sarah Marshall for Jason Seigel and from the trailer, it didn’t look like anything special. It looked like another flimsy film washing over Spring as Apatow pocketed a few more million.

Unfortunately, I was half right. his film is flimsy as hell. The story is propped up by a few middle fingers to the normal buddy movie fare, but there’s only so far parodying your own genre can take you. Another big failing for the film was what can be universally cited for an Apatow film, every female character was either boring, stupid or annoying. This wouldn’t be so much of a problem if it weren’t for the fact Radisha Jones, a very talented actress, was given such a big role. In the film she served only as an irritating side note for what should have been some complimentary heart for the film. They got it right once in Knocked Up, I know they can do it again.

I Love You, Man has its flaws but it’s also undeniably funny, a running gag where Seigel’s character refuses to clean up after his dog sits well. And Rudd’s awkwardness around his guy-friends is something I can relate to all too well. Like Role Models, Like Forgetting Sarah Marshall, I Love You, Man manages to avoid enough easy pitfalls that it so could have fallen into, and becomes yet another success for comedy. I’m still hankering for a proper narrative this month, though.

Rating: ***
share on: facebook

The best update I've given in a while

Let's cut to the chase, bitches. I got a lot of news and not much patience. Think you can handle a list?

1. Chris' departure will slow the blog down for a little while, but I am in the process of getting me a right-hand man. James Lewis, my co-podcaster will probably take up the job but he has a lot of plates spinning, watch this space.

2. I'm going to try to implement more social shit on here. I'm talking twitter and facebook and shit. Personally I'm on twitter as @tommphilip but let's see if we can't get a blog twitter up too, eh? Might also get round to doing a bigger bio. You guys know nothing about me...

3. I now have a monthly, full page piece in an actual publication! Anyone who lives in Henham on the offchance can see my reviews every month in the Henham Dragon, delivered free to your door. If you don't live there, 'fraid you'll have to make do with scans. Worry not, this is only the first stage. I'm climbing up the ladder.

4. I expect my WWE reviews to be done by the end of the weekend. holidays take their toll. I'm in and out the house more than I can ever remember. Plus I've just got into House and as far as I'm concerned, a second spent online and not watching House is a second wasted.

5. Idioteque by Radiohead is the best thing I have experienced this month. it's not a film but it gets my first 5-star rating in aaages. Sucks to be you, cinema.

See y'all next time.
share on: facebook

The Super Fun Happy Hour: Episode 5

I will be reviewing 2 films on my next podcast with the as-ever extraordinary James Lewis. This time, it's Knowing and The Wicker Man along with a ton of other media-based rambling, You'd be a fool not to download. Even if you don't listen.
To download, follow the link in the right-hand column. Don't forget to rate!
share on: facebook

Review: Monsters vs. Aliens

Anyone who knows a thing or two about films today knows just how big the 3D debate has become over the last few months. Plenty of films are being made for a 3D audience nowadays. Is it a good thing. Here’s my view: A few days ago I went to see Monsters vs Aliens. The opening sequence involves a short scene set in space, as the camera glides through planets and the like, all I can remember thinking was “Wow, I’d really like to see this in 3D”. The thing is, throughout that opening sequence all I could THINK of was how nice it would look in wonderful 3D glory. And therein lies my problem. If you go to see a film in 3D, your mind is distracted by the objects seemingly whizzing past you and the shapes and the colours and the “oooohhhhhh.....”, That’s not what I want. I want to sit and watch my film. If it looks good, great! But it’s no substitute for character or plot. Seeing a film in 3D would also grow tiring. Like my experience inverted. At first, all I wanted to do was see it in 3D- Those people who WERE would be thinking about it also, but because it was right in front of them. It was a novelty. Later on, I didn’t care. I just wanted to watch the film. For those who had the means to watch in 3D, it must have got tiring to have an extra, unnecessary layer to the film they were watching.

In terms of the film itself, MVA is fine. Just fine. The monsters all bring a charm and humor to the piece. (The best arguably being Seth Rogen’s B.O.B. Or indeed, Insectosaurus, a 50-storey insect thing oddly reminiscent of “Horton Hears a Who!”’s Katie) and a strong voice cast featuring Paul Rudd, Reese Witherspoon, Hugh Laurie and Rainn Wilson help it along. The actual humour involved is a little disappointing. It felt a little stale and easy. It was nothing we hadn’t seen before. Aside from a couple of moments, My amusement didn’t venture beyond the occasional chuckle. With some masked satire masquerading as an access point for parents, it’s clear to see why this film is doing as well as it is, and rest assured I like it. But a film called Monsters vs Aliens had so much potential to be something extraordinary, when all it really did was fall into line along with the rest of Dreamworks’ portfolio.

To summarise, it’s a fun-loving kid’s film. Definitely a better weekend family film than Dragonball Evolution. But, it’s Spring time. So be prepared to search around for a strong narrative and insight. Nevertheless, Monsters vs. Aliens, I say Aye!

Rating: ***
share on: facebook

Some News

After several months dedication and assistance to the blog, it has been decided Chris is going to depart from the blog. I want to take this opportunity to thank him for the work he;s put into this and I will be posting a link as soon as possible to his new project which I'm sure will be starting up soon.

It's onwards and upwards on here, however. I'm really going to go for it from here on in and I may or may not have some exciting news in a few days.

Until next time.

Tom.
share on: facebook

Review: The Boat That Rocked

I’ll admit it, I like Richard Curtis. Come on, Love Actually was decent. You liked it, didn’t you? Don’t be shy. Everyone knows everyone liked that film, we just pretend to believe those that say they hate it, when really, as they’re flicking through Sky around christmas time and see it on ITV2, they can’t help but look. It infects you, as does all Curtis’ work, it makes you smile and there’s nothing you can do to stop it.

The Boat That Rocked is a departure from Curtis’ usual Romantic Comedy fare. Instead, this is a full-on ensemble comedy centered around, well, men s they run an offshore pirate radio station (named Radio Rock in the film but we all know what it is really). In the line up we have Philip Seymour-Hoffman (above) as The Count, Radio Rock’s Chris Moyles, if you will. Bill Nighy as the station’s eccentric, blunt manager and Nick Frost as a womanising presenter also present in the role-call. As well as some nice, light turns from Rhys Darby, Rhys Ifans , Gemma Arterton and Kenneth Brannagh.

The film is episodic in its structure, there isn’t so much as a plot in sight apart from the ongoing on-shore government battle to have Pirate Radio outlawed. On the boat each set-piece is almost entirely detached. It’s like a sketch show with the same characters again and again. And yet it doesn’t tire. The characters involved and the weight of the names in this film pull it right up to a fantastic comedy. Admittedly with such a structure there are tricks to be missed. For instance, I would really have liked to see more of a focus on The Count’s rivalry with Rhys Ifan’s character Gavin. after all, it was funny but it didn’t seem as deep as it could have been.

It was this along with an extended running time which prevent The Boat That Rocked from being a truly wonderful film. It’s a wonderful, light spring romp with plenty of laughter, but if you want something to really get your teeth into, look elsewhere.

Rating: ****
share on: facebook

Review: Knowing

Knowing had all the potential of a downright bad film. We had Nicholas Cage (right), some outdated CG sequences from the trailer and an apocalyptic message laid out in cryptic numerical clues (Anyone remember a few years back when Jim Carrey bombed with something or other?). I entered the cinema with admittedly low expectations. Sitting down and viewing the first 20 minutes, it made for a compelling watch. Then again, Cage's films tend to hold strong for the first act. I awaited with unbridled glee for the moment when the film would veer into sheer ridiculousness and cheese, looking forward to coming home and writing a scathing review berating the director, producers, actors and anyone who would have paid their hard-earned cash on what I was sure would be the worst film of 2009.

I left the cinema disappointed, not for the film itself, but because I was at a loss as to how I was going to maul such a competent, well-paced and intriguing Sci-Fi thriller. Knowing could very well be the worst film of 2009, but only if you don’t accept the film for what it is from the start. Sure, there are several points in the film at which you think the film couldn’t get any more unbelievable or silly, then a moose, on fire, jumps into Nic Cage’s house (Yes, really). However, slaying the film for such things means you reject the concept of a film from the off. Don’t like the fantastical ending? Don’t pay to see a film where 50 years of earth’s history are accurately predicted by an elementary (primary) school child receiving psychic whispered instructions by silent men who wear lots of dark and hang out in the woods a lot.

Knowing combines several cliched film ideologies and manages to weave it into something coherent and reverent, although there is an adequate amount of mediocrity you come to expect from a Nic Cage film. Rose Byrne, cast as the female lead fares better as the daughter of the woman who’s predictions started it all. But what can you expect from an actress with 2 Danny Boyle films under her belt (28 Weeks Later and Sunshine, ***** and **** respectively)? There are plenty of reasons to dislike or even loathe this film, but why not give it a go if you’re into that kind of thing?If it doesn’t sound like your kind of thing, there’s a few other reviews around of stuff that’s out right now. Spring is a good time for films, get out there!

Rating: ***
share on: facebook

We're back! And what a way to return.

Review.
Watchmen.

I’ve known for a while now I would find this film very hard to review. Last summer, after truly realising the hype this film was generated, I bought and read the graphic novel of Watchmen. And, like many, I fell in love with it. The story is bold, big and uncompromising. each character is so broken and so human it’s not hard to see why this is considered one of the best pieces of superhero fiction the world has ever seen.

Of course, with a story as big and as bold as this, there will be compromises. Regardless, I sat down and watched “Watchmen” with admittedly high expectations.

First of all, it’s long. I mean it’s really quite a long film. So why didn’t I go to the toilet once? Why didn’t I once check the time? Because the story is awesome. There’s a high probability I may have enjoyed it more because I’d read the book, and really was just looking forward to seeing how it translated into my favourite of the mediums. Don’t, for the love of God, try to pin down the genre of this film. It’s not anything, Something like this can’t. Sure, you could throw labels at the wall. Try “superhero, action, Sci-Fi, mystery, thriller, drama” for a start. Enjoy the film as you see it. A film like this will be RUINED by the wrong preconception, no matter how small and it’ll serve you well to try to open your mind as much as possible before the trailers end.

As a side note, the trailers before Watchmen ALL kicked relatively large amounts of ass. We got trailers for “Terminator, Salvation” (trailer rating: ***), “Star Trek” (****), “Wolverine” (***) and “Lesbian Vampire Killers” (***).

Something I had absolutely no quibbles with was the quality of the casting/acting. Each of the “Watchmen” (Or Crimebusters if you’re a purist) were brilliantly and faithfully brought to life by their thespian counterparts. Jackie Earle Haley as Rorschach dominated each scene he was in, not just behind the trademark inkblot mask but in his unmasked scenes as well. By far the most unflinching and thorough portrayal of any of the Watchmen. Malin Akerman as Silk Spectre II did a fine job, despite what I view as unfairly harsh criticism of her role in the film. Billy Crudup was Dr. Manhattan did exactly right by his character. The soothing voice being the only thing he can 100% accredited to, as his character was more or less exclusively computer-generated. Nevertheless, he nailed everything up to him. The body language, those deep, true eyes. It must be hard to act so well when you know most of the time people are going to be staring at your modest blue CGI wang (yes, really). Jeffrey Dean Morgan, arguably the most established actor in the main cast was perfect as the comedian. I’m so happy they didn’t brush his dirty history under the rug. Feminists in the audience won’t be happy, though. I warned you. Matthew Goode’s Adrian Veidt even manages to make an impact, despite the actual comic character not doing so well. I really liked Veidt’s subtle German accent that strategically disappears during press conferences. Finally, Patrick Wilson, who’s 2004 drama “Hard Candy” I absolutely LOVE as Nite Owl. He was terrific as the bloated, impotent ex-crime-fighter. There’s something very 80’s about the way he carries himself generally. All-round perfect choices.

There are also little treats for those who have been reading the comic and/or have been following the press the film is receiving. Something that caught my eye was Veidt’s machine or: S.Q.U.I.D. (geddit, Watchmen fans?). Look out for as many little things as you can find in the film, makes for a fun little game.

I suppose, given the extraordinary depth the story gives, I can let you off a huge review. So I’ll give you a rundown of the things I thought worked and a few that didn’t.

So, Tom. What was good?
I’ll tell you shall I?
The action. The much-debated slo-mo is barely noticeable in the fight scenes. None are overlong, all exquisitely detailed and violent. Real treats.
The ending. Fuck the s***d. The cinematic ending proved to be more relevant, and added a new, more conclusive reason for Dr. Manhattan’s definitive departure.
It’s so pretty.
The Comedian killed JFK? Well, I never...
The relevance. Sure, it’s set in the 80’s but we can’t help but draw certain parallels with the world we live in today. Keep your eyes peeled for a quick, subtle dig at Bush.
Malin Ackerman getting sexy. don’t judge me for saying that until you see for yourself. It was awesome.
It really satisfied me. As a fan of the comic, that’s a big feat.

Aand, what was a bit crappy?
Well, for one the soundtrack. As a friend pointed out, the comic did so well without one, what was the need to add a bit of MCR (Yes, REALLY) into it?

I’m also pretty annoyed at some of the smaller changes that seemed to be put in for more immediate effect. I won’t spoil anything. I also would have liked to see a bit more of Rorschach’s psychiatrist, arguably the best secondary character in the comic.

All in all, it’s not entirely the Watchmen film I would have made. But now that this one’s here, I don’t want to change a thing. It’s savage, gripping and very, very good.

Rating: ****
share on: facebook